Sears Master Protection Agreement Class Action Lawsuit Gets Certified

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

An Illinois federal judge has granted certification to a class action lawsuit alleging Sears sold deceptive “repair and replace” master protection agreements.

Plaintiffs Nina Greene and Gerald Greene claim that they entered into and paid for several appliance-service agreements with Sears from 1994 to 2014, but that these agreements did not actually cover their products.

The plaintiffs say that the Sears defendants breached their agreements, engaged in deceptive business practices and were unjustly enriched by selling “repair or replace” master protection agreements for appliances that Sears had no intention of repairing or replacing.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a proposed Class of consumers who paid for aftermarket master protection agreements (MPAs) for products that were not covered by or eligible for coverage under the MPA, and who did not receive a full refund.

The plaintiffs also seek to certify a Class of Pennsylvania residents for claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Defendants Sears Protection Company; Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Holdings Corporation fought against Class certification, arguing that the plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the Class, that the Class definition is too broad, and that there is insufficient commonality and predominance to justify handling the case as a class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso found that the class action requirements for numerosity and commonality have been met. He found the plaintiffs “demonstrate a commonality of issues consistent with their theory of breach, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud.”

“Whether Sears sold policies for products that it did not and could not cover is a central question common to the class, and capable of proof at trial through common evidence,” Judge Alonso continued. “Defendants’ insistence that they had no such policy, that MPAs are variable, and that Sears ultimately provided some performance under consumers’ MPAs does not defeat this common contention.”

Judge Alonso also agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that they were injured because of the Sears defendants’ sale of MPAs on non-covered items and the fact that they did not receive a full refund.

“That Plaintiffs received a partial refund may affect their damages, but it does not exclude them from the class,” the judge said. “Because Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same legal theory as those of the class, typicality is satisfied.”

The judge agreed with the Sears defendants’ argument that the limitations period proposed by the plaintiffs was too broad, and limited the nationwide Class to individuals and entities who paid for aftermarket MPAs since March 25, 2005 for products that were not covered by nor eligible for coverage under the MPA and did not receive a full refund.

The Pennsylvania Class is limited to a Class of Pennsylvania residents who paid for aftermarket MPAs since March 25, 2004 to the present and who did not receive a full refund.

A status hearing for the Sears protection plan class action lawsuit has been scheduled for Aug. 29.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin A. Miller, Lori A. Fanning and Kathleen E. Boychuck of Miller Law LLC and by Andrew Joseph Belli, David M DeVito, Deborah R. Gross and Benjamin Michael Mather of Kaufman Coren & Ress PC.

The Sears Protection Plan Class Action Lawsuit is Nina Greene, et al. v. Sears Protection Company, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02546, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.